TL *Humaning the Best She Can*’s Reviews > George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat > Status Update

Jane Seymour's brothers came to an equally sticky end. Thomas Seymour was executed for treason on 20 March 1549 and Edward Seymour on 22 January 1552. A number of Jane's other supporters also suffered unpleasant deaths, including Nicholas Carew, who had coached Jane on how to capture the King's heart. He was beheaded for treason in 1539, just three years after the executions of Anne and George.

By involving George Boleyn in Anne's downfall, Cromwell had destroyed his principal noble supporter on the council. The irony is not lost on historian Rory McEntegart, who suggests that George was "the man best placed to offset the anti-Cromwellian feelings of conservative noblemen such as the Duke of Norfolk."2 In the long term, the deaths of Anne and George had considerably weakened Cromwell's position.

Henry's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, died on 23 July 1536, probably of consumption. He was just 17 years old. Of Henry's four children, not one of them had children of their own to carry on the Tudor dynasty.
So much brutality had been carried out, and so many innocent people had died, to ensure that the King had a legitimate son, and in the end it was all for nothing.

It is difficult for us today to understand why people who are so obviously innocent do not reaffirm their innocence on the scaffold. Sixteenth century values and conventions are poles apart from our own. George's speech reiterated what he had said at his trial:that the verdict proved he deserved death.

He explained that he died under the law,because it was the law that had condemned him. The law was the word of God,

George Boleyn had many faults, but treason had never been one of them, and Henry must have known that. None of the men's heads were put on display on spikes, as was usual with convicted traitors; this would surely have been the case if Henry seriously thought they were guilty, just as Thomas Culpeper's would be five years later.

George had gone from palace to prison to execution within 15 days, and it is a testament to his courage and strength of character that he was able to defend himself so well at his trial and give such an impassioned speech on the scaffold, when lesser men would still have been in shock.

It is easy to use Jane as a scapegoat, but just as the Boleyn siblings should be given the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of evidence for the charges against them, so the same courtesy should be extended to Jane.

The statement Jane gave to the court did not in itself condemn her husband, or the Queen. Both were already prejudged. There was never a chance that either would be spared, regardless of the evidence laid before the court - or more accurately, the lack of evidence. When George was initially arrested, it is probable that there was a vague intention of charging him as an accessory to his sister's misdemeanours

Following her husband's arrest, Jane may also have been in the position of either providing the Crown with a useful statement, or potentially facing charges herself as an accomplice, seeing as she too had discussed the King's problems. It may even be that she provided the statement regarding Henry's impotence without appreciating that it would be specifically used against her husband;

You don’t realize how messed up and outrageous thre trial for Anne, George, and the others were until read the full accounting of it...

:(